Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Continuous-Variable Quantum MacWilliams Identities

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read New continuous-variable MacWilliams identities bound all quantum codes against displacement noise and put E8 and Leech GKP codes at the optimal distance.

desk verdict New CV MacWilliams identities and a clean quantum Cohn-Elkies bound, but the E8/Leech optimality claim rests on two unproved numerical assumptions. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.09514 v2 pith:SIOIY6PY submitted 2025-02-13 quant-ph math.MG

Ansgar G. Burchards This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phmath.MG MSC 81P7094B6511H31 PACS 03.67.Pp
keywords continuous-variablequantumerrorcorrectionMacWilliamsidentitiesweightenumeratorsdisplacementnoisechannelCohn-ElkiesboundLevenshteinGKPcodesspherepacking
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper develops a continuous-variable analogue of the quantum MacWilliams identities and uses it to bound the parameters of any quantum error-correcting code that protects against displacement noise. For any two trace-class operators on $N$ modes it defines a primary weight distribution $A(r)$ and a dual weight distribution $B(r)$, and proves they are related by an invertible Bessel integral transform. Applied to a code projector, the identities turn the quantum error-detection conditions into the statement that $A(r)/(K B(r))$ stays near $1$ for all displacements shorter than the code distance. From this the paper derives a quantum version of the Cohn-Elkies sphere-packing bound, a quantum Levenshtein bound, and, conditional on two numerical assumptions, the conclusion that ideal $E_8$ and Leech-lattice GKP codes attain the largest possible distance among all codes, not just lattice codes. If correct, this would mean no physical bosonic code construction can beat the best known lattice GKP codes against displacement noise.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the continuous-variable weight-distribution pair $(A,B)$, together with the Bessel integral kernel $r^N J_{N-1}(rx)/x^{N-1}$ that implements the radial Fourier transform between them. For projectors onto code subspaces, the quantum error-correction conditions are exactly the statement that $A(r)=K B(r)$ for all $r$ below the code distance, so the MacWilliams identity lets one translate constraints on $A$ into constraints on $B$. The bounds then arise by inserting admissible radial test functions $f$ whose Fourier transforms change sign at the distance $d$, exactly as in the classical sphere-packing linear program.

What would settle it

Evaluate $f_8(\sqrt2 x)/\hat f_8(d^2 x/\sqrt2)$ and $f_{24}(2x)/\hat f_{24}(d^2 x/2)$ on $[0,1]$ with rigorous interval arithmetic for $d\le d^{(8)}_{\max}$ and $d\le d^{(24)}_{\max}$; a single point where either quotient exceeds $(2\pi)^4$ or $(2\pi)^{12}$, respectively, disproves Assumption 1 or 2 and collapses Theorem 3. Separately, computing both sides of the GKP MacWilliams identity (37)--(38) for the square GKP code with the stated normalization $K^2=|\det L/\sqrt{2\pi}|$ would test the Poisson-summation step.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is Theorem 1, a continuous-variable quantum Cohn-Elkies bound: any $[[N,K,d,\epsilon]]$ approximate error-detecting code satisfies $K \le \frac{1}{1-\epsilon}\sup_{x\in[0,d]} f(x)/\hat f(x)$ for every bounded non-negative radial function whose Fourier transform is non-negative below $d$ and non-positive above $d$. The bound follows from the paper's main technical tool, Theorem 4: for any trace-class operators $\hat O_1,\hat O_2$, the dual weight distribution is the Bessel-kernel integral transform $B(r)=r^N\int_0^\infty dx\, J_{N-1}(rx) x^{1-N} A(x)$ of the primary distribution, an involutive relation that plays the role of the Krawtchouk transform in classical coding theory. Specializing to the magic functions that solve the 8- and 24-dimensional sphere-packing problems gives the paper's headline application: conditional on two unproved supremum assumptions, any $[[4,K,d,\epsilon]]$-QEDC obeys $K d^8\le(4\pi)^4/(1-\epsilon)$ for $d\le 3.4286$ and any $[[12,K,d,\epsilon]]$-QEDC obeys $K d^{24}\le(8\pi)^{12}/(1-\epsilon)$ for $d\le 4.9193$, so ideal $E_8$- and Leech-based GKP codes are optimal in distance among all codes.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the quotient suprema in Assumptions 1 and 2 really occur at $x=0$ throughout the stated distance ranges, a fact the paper checks only by plotting, together with a formally applied Poisson summation whose normalization constant $K^2=|\det L/\sqrt{2\pi}|$ is not derived.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every $[[N,K,d,\epsilon]]$-QEDC automatically satisfies the quantum Cohn-Elkies inequality, giving a universal upper bound on logical dimension versus distance and noise quality.
  • The quantum Levenshtein bound shows that for a fixed logical dimension $K$, the attainable distance grows at most as $O(\sqrt N)$ in the number of modes.
  • Under Assumptions 1 and 2, no ideal code on 4 or 12 modes can exceed the distances of the $E_8$ and Leech GKP codes; any $K\ge2$ code with larger distance must be approximate with $\epsilon>0$.
  • Approximate finite-energy GKP codes inherit a distance of roughly half the ideal code's minimum dual-lattice length, with error quality $\epsilon$ exponentially small in $1/\Delta^2$; as $\epsilon\to0$ the distance does not approach the ideal value continuously.
  • The weight distributions of any code projector below its distance saturate the inequality $A\le K B$, so the MacWilliams identity gives a necessary and sufficient condition for approximate error detection in terms of weight distributions.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A rigorous proof of Assumptions 1 and 2, for example through interval arithmetic or analytic bounds on the magic functions, would upgrade the optimality of $E_8$ and Leech GKP codes from conditional to unconditional; the paper leaves this as the main open step.
  • The same Bessel-kernel MacWilliams identity applies to arbitrary trace-class operators, so it may provide a new invariant for continuous-variable states beyond codes, such as a quantitative description of how much of a state's characteristic function sits at each displacement length.
  • Because the bounds are not tight for approximate $\epsilon>0$ codes, the paper leaves open the possibility of finite-energy constructions that beat the naive envelope-based GKP codes while approaching the ideal-distance limit.
  • Testing the normalization $K^2=|\det L/\sqrt{2\pi}|$ in the Poisson summation step against a direct computation for square or hexagonal GKP codes would confirm whether the formal identity extends beyond the stabilizer-code intuition.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces continuous-variable analogues of quantum weight distributions and a corresponding MacWilliams identity (Theorem 4) for pairs of trace-class operators. It uses these identities to derive a continuous-variable quantum Cohn-Elkies bound (Theorem 1), a quantum Levenshtein sphere-packing bound (Theorem 2), and, conditional on two numerical assumptions, bounds that match the parameters of ideal E8- and Leech-lattice GKP codes (Theorem 3). The paper also defines an approximate quantum error detection code (QEDC) with parameter epsilon, derives a relation between QEDC quality and the weight distributions (Lemma 1), gives an occupation-number bound, and presents examples including coherent, Fock, cat, and ideal GKP codes.

Significance. The core derivations of Theorems 1 and 2 are clean and parameter-free: they follow from the new MacWilliams identity, the QEDC ratio condition, and known properties of the Levenshtein auxiliary functions. If Theorem 3's assumptions hold, the result would be notable because it extends optimality of E8 and Leech sphere packings to a statement about all continuous-variable quantum codes, not just lattice-based GKP codes. The approximate-QEDC definition is operational and the paper is honest about the conditional status of the main optimality claim, though the conclusion section overstates it. The significance is therefore contingent on the validity of Assumptions 1 and 2 and on the correctness of the GKP normalization in Section 3.2.4.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 6.2, Assumptions 1-2 and Theorem 3] The paper's central advertised result, the optimality of E8 and Leech GKP codes, is proved only under Assumptions 1 and 2, which the manuscript explicitly states it does not prove and for which only Fig. 3 is supplied. These assumptions assert that the quotients in Eqs. (73) and (74) attain their suprema at x = 0 for all d up to d_max; if an interior maximum ever exceeds the value at x = 0, the Theorem 3 bound becomes weaker than the E8/Leech code point and the optimality conclusion does not follow. Section 7 nonetheless states that 'we have shown that the distances achieved by ideal GKP codes based on the E8 and Leech lattices cannot be exceeded by any physical construction,' which is stronger than what the conditional proof establishes. Please provide a proof of the assumptions, supply certified numerical verification (e.g., interval arithmetic) over the full d-ranges, or reclassify Theorem 3 as a conjecture and adjust the abstract and conclusion accordingly.
  2. [Section 3.2.4, Eqs. (37)-(40)] The formal derivation of the MacWilliams identity for ideal GKP codes contains normalization problems. With the Fourier convention of Eq. (5), Poisson summation for the symplectic dual lattice L^\perp gives a coefficient involving det L in the stated form, not |det L/sqrt(2pi)|^{1/2} as printed; the printed quantity is dimensionally inconsistent. In addition, the relation K^2 = |det L/sqrt(2pi)| does not match the standard GKP parameter relation: for the square GKP qubit L = 2 sqrt(pi) Z^2, one has det L = 4 pi and K = 2, so K = det L/(2 pi)^N, whereas K^2 = |det L/sqrt(2pi)| would give an incorrect value. As a result, the identity (21) does not follow for A and B as defined in Eqs. (37)-(38) without a correction of the normalization. Since Section 3.2.4 is presented as deriving the MacWilliams identities for ideal GKP codes, this needs to be fixed or the section explicitly restricted; the main upper-bound theorems do not depend on this section, but the claimed scope of the framework does.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section 3.2.4, Eq. (40)] The word 'emply' should be 'employ', and the sentence 'the quantity in parenthesis must be equal to B' should clarify that the equality holds in the sense of distributions after testing against arbitrary rapidly decaying functions.
  2. [Figure 3] The plots do not label which d values correspond to which curves, nor do they indicate how d_max is determined; the statement that the quotient 'visibly achieves' a maximum is not quantitative. Please add a legend and, ideally, a table of computed suprema or certified numerical bounds.
  3. [Introduction] The phrase 'considered by Van Lint one of the most fundamental results' is grammatically awkward, and reference [11] in the introduction should be attributed to Cohn et al. rather than to Cohn alone.
  4. [Abstract and Section 7] The abstract says the paper 'argue[s]' optimality, while Section 7 says 'we have shown'; these two statements should be made consistent given that Theorem 3 is conditional on Assumptions 1 and 2.
  5. [Eq. (65)] The first inequality in the proof chain requires the assumed non-negativity of \hat f; this is stated in Theorem 1, but it would be helpful to restate it in the proof for readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main bounds derive from newly introduced weight distributions and external magic functions; the E8/Leech optimality claim is conditional on unproved numerical assumptions, which is a rigor gap, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its own inputs. Theorem 4 (Eq. (21)) is obtained by expanding the trace-class operators in displacement operators and evaluating the angular integral with the Bessel identity (Eq. (20)); the inverse relation (Eq. (22)) is Fourier involutivity, not an assumed conclusion. Theorem 1 follows from Lemma 1, the MacWilliams identity, and the sign conditions on the external auxiliary function, with no fitted parameter and no use of the target code parameters beyond the Lemma 1 inequality (Eqs. (65)-(66)). Lemma 2 and Theorem 2 are proved analytically in Appendix D. Theorem 3 is explicitly conditional: Section 6.2 states, 'While we do not provide proofs of the equalities (73) and (74), a plot of the respective quotients, which we provide in Fig. 3, indicates that their suprema are achieved as assumed.' A numerical failure of Assumptions 1 or 2 would invalidate the advertised optimality claim, but those assumptions concern the external magic functions and do not encode the GKP code parameters they constrain; they are therefore a proof gap, not a circular step. The ideal-GKP weight-distribution derivation in Section 3.2.4 uses Poisson summation and the cited lattice relation K^2=|det L/sqrt(2pi)| from prior lattice-GKP work [20]; that step is underived and normalization-sensitive, but it is not a re-labeling of the paper's own result and is not needed for Theorem 3. The only self-citation, Ref. [27] for phase-vanishing in even lattices in Appendix C, is technical and not load-bearing for the central bounds. Overall, no circular reduction is exhibited; the main risk is incomplete proof of Assumptions 1-2 and not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The main new constructs are the weight distributions A and B and the approximate QEDC definition, which are mathematical tools, not invented physical entities. The load-bearing external inputs are the unproved magic-function assumptions and the formal GKP normalization step.

free parameters (1)
  • d_max thresholds for magic-function assumptions = 3.4286 (d_max_8), 4.9193 (d_max_24), numerically determined
    The range of applicability of Theorem 3 depends on these numerically evaluated thresholds; they are asserted without analytic proof as part of Assumptions 1 and 2.
assumptions (4)
  • standard math Poisson summation formula for symplectic dual lattices with the stated normalization
    Used in Section 3.2.4 to derive the GKP MacWilliams identity; the normalization factor K^2=|det L/sqrt(2pi)| is asserted and not proven.
  • domain assumption Knill-Laflamme quantum error correction conditions
    Basis for relating weight distributions to code distance, Section 3.3.3 and Eq. (44).
  • ad hoc to paper Assumptions 1 and 2: magic-function quotient suprema
    Unproved; numerically verified only via plots in Fig. 3. Required for Theorem 3.
  • ad hoc to paper Ideal GKP projectors can be treated as formal trace-class operators with delta-function weight distributions
    GKP codewords are unnormalizable; Section 3.2.4 extends the framework formally via Poisson summation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Continuous-Variable Quantum MacWilliams Identities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SIOIY6PY

@misc{pith2026250209514,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Continuous-Variable Quantum MacWilliams Identities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SIOIY6PY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.09514}
}
abstract

We derive bounds on general quantum error correcting codes against the displacement noise channel. The bounds limit the distances attainable by codes and also apply in an approximate setting. Our main result is a quantum analogue of the classical Cohn-Elkies bound on sphere packing densities attainable in Euclidean space. We further derive a quantum version of Levenshtein's sphere packing bound and argue that Gottesman--Kitaev--Preskill (GKP) codes based on the $E_8$ and Leech lattices achieve optimal distances. The main technical tool is a continuous-variable version of the quantum MacWilliams identities, which we introduce. The identities relate a pair of weight distributions which can be obtained for any two trace-class operators. General properties of these weight distributions are discussed, along with several examples.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.09514 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Weight distributions of example pure states. In the pure-state case the primary and the dual [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Weight distributions of example error correcting codes encoding a logical qubit. Left: Weight [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: Plot of the quotient f8( √ 2x)/ ˆf8(d 2x/√ 2) over the unit interval for various values of d. The quotient visibly achieves a maximum value of (2π) 4 as long as d ≤ d (max) 8 ≈ 3.4286. For higher values of d the quotient achieves values exceeding (2π) 4 . Right: Plot of the quotient f24(2x)/ ˆf24(d 2x/2) over the unit interval for various values of d. The quotient visibly achieves a maximum value of (2π) 12 as… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Main steps in lower bounding the convolution product [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. A Three-Point Continuous-Variable Quantum MacWilliams Identity

    quant-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    A three-point continuous-variable quantum MacWilliams identity is constructed, and shown to collapse exactly to the two-point bound for GKP lattice and certifiable bosonic code sectors.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J. H. Van Lint. Introduction to Coding Theory. Vol. 86. Graduate Texts in Mathematics. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 1982

    work page 1982

  2. [2]

    A Theorem on the Distribution of Weights in a Systematic Code

    Jessie MacWilliams. “A Theorem on the Distribution of Weights in a Systematic Code”. In: The Bell System Technical Journal 42.1 (1963), pp. 79–94

    work page 1963

  3. [3]

    The MacWilliams Identities for Nonlinear Codes

    F. J. MacWilliams, N. J. A. Sloane, and J.-M. Goethals. “The MacWilliams Identities for Nonlinear Codes”. In: The Bell System Technical Journal 51.4 (1972), pp. 803–819

    work page 1972

  4. [4]

    Quantum Analog of the MacWilliams Identities for Classical Coding Theory

    Peter Shor and Raymond Laflamme. “Quantum Analog of the MacWilliams Identities for Classical Coding Theory”. In: Physical Review Letters 78.8 (1997), pp. 1600–1602

    work page 1997

  5. [5]

    Bounds for Unrestricted Codes, by Linear Programming

    P. Delsarte. “Bounds for Unrestricted Codes, by Linear Programming”. In: Philips Res. Repts 27 (1972), pp. 272–289

    work page 1972

  6. [6]

    New Upper Bounds on the Rate of a Code via the Delsarte-MacWilliams Inequalities

    R. McEliece et al. “New Upper Bounds on the Rate of a Code via the Delsarte-MacWilliams Inequalities”. In: IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 23.2 (1977), pp. 157–166

    work page 1977

  7. [7]

    Upper Bounds on the Size of Quantum Codes

    A. Ashikhmin and S. Litsyu. “Upper Bounds on the Size of Quantum Codes”. In: IEEE Transac- tions on Information Theory 45.4 (1999), pp. 1206–1215

    work page 1999

  8. [8]

    New Upper Bounds on Sphere Packings I

    Henry Cohn and Noam Elkies. “New Upper Bounds on Sphere Packings I”. In: Annals of Mathe- matics 157.2 (2003), pp. 689–714

    work page 2003

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Sphere Packing Bounds via Spherical Codes

    Henry Cohn and Yufei Zhao. “Sphere Packing Bounds via Spherical Codes”. In: Duke Mathematical Journal 163.10 (2014), pp. 1965–2002

    2014

  2. [10]

    The Sphere Packing Problem in Dimension 8

    Maryna S. Viazovska. “The Sphere Packing Problem in Dimension 8”. In: Annals of Mathematics 185.3 (2017), pp. 991–1015

    2017

  3. [11]

    From Sphere Packing to Fourier Interpolation

    Henry Cohn. “From Sphere Packing to Fourier Interpolation”. In: Bulletin of the American Math- ematical Society (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    Packing, Coding, and Ground States

    Henry Cohn. Packing, Coding, and Ground States. 2016. arXiv: 1603.05202

    2016 arXiv

  5. [13]

    The Sphere Packing Problem

    N. J. A. Sloane. “The Sphere Packing Problem.” In: Documenta Mathematica (1998), pp. 387–396

    1998

  6. [14]

    J. H. Conway and N. J. A. Sloane. Sphere Packings, Lattices and Groups. Ed. by S. S. Chern et al. Vol. 290. Grundlehren Der Mathematischen Wissenschaften. New York, NY: Springer, 1999

    1999

  7. [15]

    Quantum Continuous Variables: A Primer of Theoretical Methods

    Alessio Serafini. Quantum Continuous Variables: A Primer of Theoretical Methods. CRC Press, 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    Gaussian Quantum Information

    Christian Weedbrook et al. “Gaussian Quantum Information”. In: Rev. Mod. Phys. 84.2 (2012), pp. 621–669

    2012

  9. [17]

    Victor V. Albert. Bosonic Coding: Introduction and Use Cases. 2022. arXiv: 2211.05714

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Advances in Bosonic Quantum Error Correction with Gottesman-Kitaev- Preskill Codes: Theory, Engineering and Applications

    Anthony J. Brady et al. “Advances in Bosonic Quantum Error Correction with Gottesman-Kitaev- Preskill Codes: Theory, Engineering and Applications”. In: Progress in Quantum Electronics 93 (2024). 18

    2024

  11. [19]

    Towards Scalable Bosonic Quan- tum Error Correction

    Barbara M. Terhal, Jonathan Conrad, and Christophe Vuillot. “Towards Scalable Bosonic Quan- tum Error Correction”. In: Quantum Science and Technology 5.4 (2020)

    2020

  12. [20]

    Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill Codes: A Lattice Perspective

    Jonathan Conrad, Jens Eisert, and Francesco Arzani. “Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill Codes: A Lattice Perspective”. In: Quantum 6 (2022), p. 648

    2022

  13. [21]

    Andrews, Richard Askey, and Ranjan Roy

    George E. Andrews, Richard Askey, and Ranjan Roy. Special Functions. Encyclopedia of Mathe- matics and Its Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999

    1999

  14. [22]

    An Introduction to Group Representations and Orthogonal Polynomials

    Dennis Stanton. “An Introduction to Group Representations and Orthogonal Polynomials”. In: Orthogonal Polynomials: Theory and Practice . Ed. by Paul Nevai. NATO ASI Series. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, 1990, pp. 419–433

    1990

  15. [23]

    A Krawtchouk Polynomial Addition Theorem and Wreath Products of Sym- metric Groups

    Charles F. Dunkl. “A Krawtchouk Polynomial Addition Theorem and Wreath Products of Sym- metric Groups”. In: Indiana University Mathematics Journal 25.4 (1976), pp. 335–358. JSTOR: 24890996

    1976

  16. [24]

    Barnett and Paul M

    Stephen M. Barnett and Paul M. Radmore. Methods in Theoretical Quantum Optics. Oxford University Press, 2002

    2002

  17. [25]

    I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik. Table of Integrals, Series, and Products. 7th ed. Academic Press, 2022

    2022

  18. [26]

    Encoding a Qubit in an Oscillator

    Daniel Gottesman, Alexei Kitaev, and John Preskill. “Encoding a Qubit in an Oscillator”. In: Physical Review A 64.1 (2001)

    2001

  19. [27]

    Burchards, Steven T

    Ansgar G. Burchards, Steven T. Flammia, and Jonathan Conrad. Fiber Bundle Fault Tolerance of GKP Codes. 2024. arXiv: 2410.07332

    2024

  20. [28]

    Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction

    Daniel Gottesman. “Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Correction”. PhD thesis. California Institute of Technology, 1997

    1997

  21. [29]

    Theta Functions and Weighted Theta Functions of Euclidean Lattices, with Some Applications

    Noam D Elkies. “Theta Functions and Weighted Theta Functions of Euclidean Lattices, with Some Applications”

  22. [30]

    Good Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill Codes from the NTRU Cryptosystem

    Jonathan Conrad, Jens Eisert, and Jean-Pierre Seifert. “Good Gottesman-Kitaev-Preskill Codes from the NTRU Cryptosystem”. In: Quantum 8 (2024), p. 1398

    2024

  23. [31]

    Bounds on Absolutely Maximally Entangled States from Shadow Inequalities, and the Quantum MacWilliams Identity

    Felix Huber et al. “Bounds on Absolutely Maximally Entangled States from Shadow Inequalities, and the Quantum MacWilliams Identity”. In: Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 51.17 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    A Theory of Quantum Error-Correcting Codes

    Emanuel Knill and Raymond Laflamme. “A Theory of Quantum Error-Correcting Codes”. In: Physical Review Letters 84.11 (2000), pp. 2525–2528

    2000

  25. [33]

    M. A. Nielsen. The Entanglement Fidelity and Quantum Error Correction. 1996. arXiv: quant- ph/9606012

    1996

  26. [34]

    Sending Entanglement through Noisy Quantum Channels

    Benjamin Schumacher. “Sending Entanglement through Noisy Quantum Channels”. In: Physical Review A 54.4 (1996), pp. 2614–2628

    1996

  27. [35]

    On Bounds for Packings in N-Dimensional Euclidean Space

    V. I. Levenshtein. “On Bounds for Packings in N-Dimensional Euclidean Space”. In: Doklady Akademii Nauk SSSR 245.6 (1979), pp. 1299–1303

    1979

  28. [36]

    On Bounds for Packings on a Sphere and in Space

    G.A. Kabatiansky and V. I. Levenshtein. “On Bounds for Packings on a Sphere and in Space”. In: Problemy Peredachi Informatsii 14.1 (1978), pp. 3–25

    1978

  29. [37]

    The Sphere Packing Problem in Dimension 24

    Henry Cohn et al. “The Sphere Packing Problem in Dimension 24”. In: Annals of Mathematics 185.3 (2017)

    2017

  30. [38]

    Optimality and Uniqueness of the Leech Lattice among Lat- tices

    Henry Cohn and Abhinav Kumar. “Optimality and Uniqueness of the Leech Lattice among Lat- tices”. In: Annals of Mathematics 170.3 (2009), pp. 1003–1050

    2009

  31. [39]

    Quantum Shadow Enumerators

    E.M. Rains. “Quantum Shadow Enumerators”. In: IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 45.7 (1999), pp. 2361–2366

    1999

  32. [40]

    Linear Programming Bounds for Approximate Quantum Error Correction Over Arbitrary Quantum Channels

    Yingkai Ouyang and Ching-Yi Lai. “Linear Programming Bounds for Approximate Quantum Error Correction Over Arbitrary Quantum Channels”. In: IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 68.8 (2022), pp. 5234–5247

    2022

  33. [41]

    A Quantum Analog of Delsarte’s Linear Programming Bounds

    Rui Samuel Okada. “A Quantum Analog of Delsarte’s Linear Programming Bounds”. PhD thesis. UC Davis, 2023. 19

    2023

  34. [42]

    Semidefinite Programming, Harmonic Analysis and Coding Theory

    Christine Bachoc. Semidefinite Programming, Harmonic Analysis and Coding Theory. 2010. arXiv: 0909.4767

    2010 arXiv

  35. [43]

    New Code Upper Bounds from the Terwilliger Algebra and Semidefinite Program- ming

    A. Schrijver. “New Code Upper Bounds from the Terwilliger Algebra and Semidefinite Program- ming”. In: IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 51.8 (2005), pp. 2859–2866

    2005

  36. [44]

    SDP Bounds on Quantum Codes

    Gerard Angl` es Munn´ e, Andrew Nemec, and Felix Huber. SDP Bounds on Quantum Codes. 2024. arXiv: 2408.10323

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Three-Point Bounds for Sphere Packing

    Henry Cohn, David de Laat, and Andrew Salmon. Three-Point Bounds for Sphere Packing. 2022. arXiv: 2206.15373

    2022 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Quantum Error Detection .I. Statement of the Problem

    A.E. Ashikhmin et al. “Quantum Error Detection .I. Statement of the Problem”. In: IEEE Trans- actions on Information Theory 46.3 (2000), pp. 778–788

    2000

  39. [47]

    Fidelity Lower Bounds for Stabilizer and CSS Quantum Codes

    Alexei Ashikhmin. “Fidelity Lower Bounds for Stabilizer and CSS Quantum Codes”. In: IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 60.6 (2014), pp. 3104–3116

    2014

  40. [48]

    Signed Quantum Weight Enumerators Characterize Qubit Magic State Distillation

    Patrick Rall. Signed Quantum Weight Enumerators Characterize Qubit Magic State Distillation

  41. [49]

    Invariant Theory and Magic State Distillation

    Amolak Ratan Kalra and Shiroman Prakash. Invariant Theory and Magic State Distillation. 2025. arXiv: 2501.10163

    2025

  42. [50]

    Multipartite Entanglement, Quantum-Error-Correcting Codes, and Entangling Power of Quantum Evolutions

    A. J. Scott. “Multipartite Entanglement, Quantum-Error-Correcting Codes, and Entangling Power of Quantum Evolutions”. In: Physical Review A 69.5 (2004)

    2004

  43. [51]

    Shor–Laflamme Distributions of Graph States and Noise Robustness of Entanglement

    Daniel Miller et al. “Shor–Laflamme Distributions of Graph States and Noise Robustness of Entanglement”. In: Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 56.33 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    Experimental Measurement and a Physical Interpretation of Quantum Shadow Enumerators

    Daniel Miller et al. Experimental Measurement and a Physical Interpretation of Quantum Shadow Enumerators. 2024. arXiv: 2408.16914

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Stabilization of Finite-Energy Gottesman- Kitaev-Preskill States

    Baptiste Royer, Shraddha Singh, and S. M. Girvin. “Stabilization of Finite-Energy Gottesman- Kitaev-Preskill States”. In: Physical Review Letters 125.26 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    Equivalence of Approximate Gottesman- Kitaev-Preskill Codes

    Takaya Matsuura, Hayata Yamasaki, and Masato Koashi. “Equivalence of Approximate Gottesman- Kitaev-Preskill Codes”. In: Physical Review A 102.3 (2020). A A Bessel function identity We derive the Bessel identity (20) by computing the Fourier transform of a certain distribution ...

    2020

  47. [55]

    Let us further denote by λ⊥ 1 the norm of shortest nonzero vector in L⊥

    The vectors σ⊥ 1 and σ⊥ 2 form a basis of L⊥ while the vectors σ1 = 2σ⊥ 2 and σ2 = 2σ⊥ 1 form a basis of L. Let us further denote by λ⊥ 1 the norm of shortest nonzero vector in L⊥. We can now compute the characteristic functions of the enveloped logical |0⟩ and |1⟩ states of t...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.